I'm not at all sure the Black Court do have a choice.
Are all red courts and black court vampires evil?Even the new found lack of choice reminds me of a fallen. Just one big switch that can't be unflipped.
This is a pretty huge question and depends a lot on how you view the world.
Red Court vampires, by definition, to become a vampire, have to murder someone else to become what they are. They have to end another person's life to satisfy a desire that does not /need/ to be satisfied in order for them to continue living. Every single one of them makes a choice to sate that desire rather than allow another human being to live--the Fellowship of St. Giles proves that.
(Of course, there are shades of grey involved--a half-vampire who was kept starving and without water in a basement for three days before they were thrown a mortal has a much more difficult time making a clear-headed choice than a half-vampire who was restrained yet cared for by a group of religiously fanatic monks at a Fellowship stronghold, but there's still a choice being made.)
That could, by some people, be considered a working definition of evil. Sometimes unfortunate, sometimes understandable as to how someone could make that choice, but evil nonetheless.
Black Court Vamps are a different story. They're actually tainted by something hideous and unworldly. They are driven to kill to survive. They don't really have a lot of choice about it. They enjoy being what they are, and doing what they do. They can be sad that they don't have someone who loves them, or upset that the world has passed them by and has changed on them, but at the end of the day, they're basically black-hearts who occasionally pull out a few of the tattered remains of their humanity, fail to fit back into them like they used to, and get maudlin about their glory days when they could watch the sun rise.
To get a clearer answer we need to see all the vampire courts to be able to make a clear argument concerning their true nature.Possibly, but allow me to make a few thematic Wags, utilizing a bit of what I know from Woj's.
I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Winter Fae is the only baddie type that Jim Butcher ever created that has more than one side to it and isn't a whole-black hat. In fact, I would put money on the assumption that no enemy in the Dresden Files could be ultimately viewed as fully evil, once all is actually known about them.
Whampire = lust only works for the Raiths. Though two of the White Court noble houses do seem to feed on two of the three cardinal virtues. The Raiths feed on lust and are harmed by love (Amoracchius?) and the Skavis feed on despair (presumably weak against hope, embodied by Esperacchius). I wonder if a case might also be made that faith is the opposite of fear, thereby putting Malvora in opposition to faith / Fidelacchius?
re: JonasYour only looking at the simple translation of lust, for charnel desire. If we look at it through how you brought up,(because yes the three also do match up thematically) then take say, Marcone. Marcones crime is lust his foible is love,he might limit it to innocent children but that it the prime opposing factor. But he doesn't lust for sex, iirc he can even Resist Laura a bit like Harry. He lusts for Power, with a capital P. He wants the power, the choices it brings.
I believe it's reds who have the backwards knees. At one point in a fight Harry bashes something in the knee and comments that it wouldn't have worked on a Rampire because their actual knees are backwards (though I'm not sure how the actual mechanics of passing for human work ... possibly they can flex either way?), and it would have just pissed off a Blampire.
As for the vampire courts corresponding to the seven deadly sins, I'm not sure I buy that one. Whampire = lust only works for the Raiths. Though two of the White Court noble houses do seem to feed on two of the three cardinal virtues. The Raiths feed on lust and are harmed by love (Amoracchius?) and the Skavis feed on despair (presumably weak against hope, embodied by Esperacchius). I wonder if a case might also be made that faith is the opposite of fear, thereby putting Malvora in opposition to faith / Fidelacchius?
then take say, Marcone. Marcones crime is lust his foible is love,he might limit it to innocent children but that it the prime opposing factor. But he doesn't lust for sex, iirc he can even Resist Laura a bit like Harry. He lusts for Power, with a capital P. He wants the power, the choices it brings.That is a way, way loose translation of lust, and I don't think it applies in this situation. By boiling it down to "a desire that cannot be filled" then essentially everyone in The Dresden Files is a creature of lust. This is the human condition. Otherwise then, Molly lusts for freedom and independence, Butters lusts for respect in his job, Karrin lusts to play the hero and help people, Harry lusts for quiet alone time on his couch with a good paperback. Sure, Marcone wants power and influence, and gets them. Doesn't make him a creature of lust. And it doesn't make the White Court's acts of emotional draining more "lusty" than, say, the Red court, whose feeding practices were VERY sexualized.
That is a way, way loose translation of lust, and I don't think it applies in this situation. By boiling it down to "a desire that cannot be filled" then essentially everyone in The Dresden Files is a creaure of lust.Not even sure what book it's in off the top of my head let alone which book ks where to pull the quote from, go reread it. Harry applies famine directly to the Whites perspective on how they would define reality in charge, zero satisfaction
This is the human condition.Indeed ;)
Otherwise then, Molly lusts for freedom and independence, Butters lusts for respect in his job, Karrin lusts to play the hero and help people, Harry lusts for quiet alone time on his couch with a good paperback. Sure, Marcone wants power and influence, and gets them. Doesn't make him a creature of lust.By a narrow definition, if your not going to look at the thematics and how it's actually described. Why does Marcone do what he does? what does he WANT?
And it doesn't make the White Court's acts of emotional draining more "lusty" than, say, the Red court, whose feeding practices were VERY sexualized.Not really what i'm saying at all...
Besides, the foil of Marcone is certainly not love. As far as we can see, love has nothing to do with the reason why he protects children. The evidence portrayed in Death Masks and Small Favor lean more in favor of immense guilt and shame, rather than any sort of feeling of love on his behalf. I doubt he even knew Helen's child before he put her in a coma.Ahem, you don't feel guilt if you don't genuinely care. See his criminal Empire. Guilt stems from empathy, from Caring. An i'd bet just about anything if we don't see Marcone with the sword of love in MM, we'll see it in our timeline.
I think that you're loosening the translation in order to fit your theory, and in doing so you're losing the significance of the sin of lust. After all, defining it as a desire that cannot be quenched is pretty much identical to gluttony, which would also be pretty identical to greed.And I think you just don't see what I see in the same pic bro. And yes I've already brainstormed into the fact multiple facets of the 7 sins are actually different versions of the negative aspects of the 3 primary maleficent powers. The facts and supposition came before the theory Watson, and i'm deeply insulted here. I know theory better then to make such an elementary mistake boy.
Besides, if we're matching up sins to courts, it seems like Wrath would fit the black court better in any case.no idea, that was my on the spot guess but I've gone through it enough to HAVE notes fyi...
I think that your attempt to define the vampire courts as being similar to the seven deadly sins is far too Catholic to really fit the pan-theological world of the Dresden Files. Jim's stated that we see a lot of Christianity simply because TDF takes place in the USA and Europe mostly, where Christianity has its greatest foothold, but that the same powers would be very different in other regions. Trying to make the Jade Court, for example, fit into the Seven Deadly Sins would mean taking a group which resides in China and doesn't leave the Yangtze River Valley area, and subjecting them to a paradigm that at most has a small number of persecuted followers in their area. Beings in the Dresden Files look very different from different perspectives.I'm being TWC/TWG centric, don't know about Catholicism but considering that's the Christianity Jim has experience with i'd imagine that's about right. And you seem to be forgetting perspective changes and the fact most sins are found in euro-Asian lore, just not so organized. We're dealing with renditions and generational activities in which we KNOW TWC was a thing in. It's actually an idea based off of the jewish Seraphim and us living on 'gaia' with Nemesis(where the sin was inbalanced towards) acting in our inbalances against us so... not so Christian centric as you think. I can also show various other ways, Buddism, Taoism, ect were incorporated into the set up. If you keep to my starborn generation theory as it was originally posted it actually deals with coexisting event's from generational theory fyi.
Not sure I like the cut of your reply here don, you make some high assumptions about how much forethought I put into this.. An let's try to keep off of religious angles like that, 'it's too catholic'. Na man, It just is.Honestly, I really do apologize if my response stepped over the line at all. I was speaking of "seven deadly sins" in the context in which they were created in the Catholic church, as cardinal sins (vs. venial sins) which is something only held as religiously important within the Catholic faith. If you're speaking of it in the popular, historical, or secular sense, then my apologies. And also, I apologize if I came off as just blandly dismissing a theory you've been working on for a while.
Not even sure what book it's in off the top of my head let alone which book ks where to pull the quote from, go reread it. Harry applies famine directly to the Whites perspective on how they would define reality in charge, zero satisfactionI know the passage you're talking about, but I don't think Dresden refers to famine at all. It's in chapter seven of Turn Coat.
"Thanks," I said, and followed my brother into a scene that split the difference between a Dionysian bacchanal and a Fellini flick.Lust, yes. Debauchery, yes. But famine? Not so much. Though if you were thinking of a different passage, my apologies.
There was no white light inside Zero. Most of it was red, punctuated in places with pools of blue and plenty of black lights scattered everywhere so that even where shadows were thickest, some colors jumped out in disquieting luminescence. Cigarette smoke hung in a pall over the large room, a distance-distorting haze under the black lights.
We had entered on a kind of balcony that overlooked the dance floor below. Music pounded, the bass beat so loud that I could feel it in my lower stomach. Lights flashed and swayed in synchronicity. The floor was crowded with sweating, moving bodies dressed in a broad spectrum of clothing, from full leather coverings including a whole-head hood, at one extreme, to one girl clad in a few strips of electrical tape on the other. There was a bar down by the dance floor, and tables scattered around its outskirts under a thirty-foot-high ceiling. A few cages hung about eight feet over the dance floor, each containing a young man or woman in provocative clothing.
Stairways and catwalks led up to about a dozen platforms that thrust out from the walls, where patrons could sit and overlook the scene below while gaining a measure of privacy for themselves. Most of the platforms were furnished with couches and chaise longues rather than tables and chairs. There were more exotic bits of furniture up on the platforms, as well: the giant X shape of a St. Andrew's cross, which was currently supporting the bound form of a young man, his wrists and ankles secured to the cross, his face to the wood, his hair falling down over his naked back. Another platform had a shiny brass pole in its center, and a pair of girls danced around it, in the middle of a circle of men and women sprawled over the couches and lounges.
Everywhere I looked, people were doing things that would have gotten them arrested anywhere else. Couples, threesomes, foursomes, and nineteensomes were fully engaged in sexual activity on some of the private platforms. From where I stood, I could see two different tables where lines of white powder waited to be inhaled. A syringe disposal was on the wall next to every trash can, marked with a bright biohazard symbol. People were being beaten with whips and riding crops. People were bound up with elaborate arrangements of ropes, as well as with more prosaic handcuffs. Piercings and tattoos were everywhere. Screams and cries occasionally found their way through the music, agony, ecstasy, joy, or rage all indistinguishable from one another.
The lights flashed constantly, changing and shifting, and every beat of the music created a dozen new frozen montages of sybaritic abandon.
The music, the light, the sweat, the smoke, the booze, the drugs-it all combined into a wet, desperate miasma that was full of needs that could never be sated.
That's why the place was called Zero, I realized. Zero limits. Zero inhibitions. Zero restraint. It was a place of perfect, focused abandon, of indulgence, and it was intriguing and hideous, nauseating and viscerally hungry.
Zero fulfillment.
I felt a shudder run through me. This was the world as created by the White Court. This is what they would make of it, if they were given the chance. Planet Zero.
By a narrow definition, if your not going to look at the thematics and how it's actually described. Why does Marcone do what he does? what does he WANT?The thing is, I don't remember Marcone as ever having demonstrated an emotional lust for power. He's like a mountain lion, quiet, stalking, calculating, and striking when necessary. He shows emotion at other times, certainly, but he always maintains a professional attitude toward his business. This is not the emotional driven aspect of lust; the thirst and hunger to take and devour and consume what is out of your reach.
Ahem, you don't feel guilt if you don't genuinely care. See his criminal Empire. Guilt stems from empathy, from Caring. An i'd bet just about anything if we don't see Marcone with the sword of love in MM, we'll see it in our timeline.Caring and love are completely different. Also, a person doesn't need to care in the actual person in order to express guilt. For example - pure hypothesis and speculation - if Marcone was orphaned as a child because his parents were gunned down by mobsters, and he rose to the position that he's in all in order to wrench control of Chicago's underground out from the last regime, his actions could be interpreted as guilt because despite his efforts to turn the criminal underground into a controlled, less violent place, he became exactly the monster that he despised. Which would completely explain why he has one secret sin, something that he would give anything to undo.
Not really what i'm saying at all...So explain it! :D Help me understand. I know I must not be seeing the big picture the way you are. If you're explaining non-sexual, non-emotional actions as "lusty" and I reply that the interpretation of the word loses its meaning, reply back and tell me why your meaning makes more sense. You mention that your understanding of this is grounded a lot more in the older historical imbalances as described in Buddhism and Taoism. That would be a perfect way to counter me and help me understand.
And I think you just don't see what I see in the same pic bro. And yes I've already brainstormed into the fact multiple facets of the 7 sins are actually different versions of the negative aspects of the 3 primary maleficent powers. The facts and supposition came before the theory Watson, and i'm deeply insulted here. I know theory better then to make such an elementary mistake boy.
*My original points were towards the fact Woj states outright he had 7 courts in his original idea but he he'd only fleshed out 3-4 really well, And towards a reasoning behind this fact.I like this. I haven't encountered this particular WOJ myself (or I did a long time ago and forgot about it) but a "seven deadly sins" theme does make sense when broadly creating the vampires, especially because the initial concept of the Whites certainly was tied to lust. It's only when Harry starts diving into the intricacies between the houses that he encounters those who feed on fear or despair, which might have been a further development after the initial concept was created.
Honestly, I really do apologize if my response stepped over the line at all. I was speaking of "seven deadly sins" in the context in which they were created in the Catholic church, as cardinal sins (vs. venial sins) which is something only held as religiously important within the Catholic faith. If you're speaking of it in the popular, historical, or secular sense, then my apologies. And also, I apologize if I came off as just blandly dismissing a theory you've been working on for a while.It's alright, I ight be being too defensive, side effect of reading into everything too much lol.
I know the passage you're talking about, but I don't think Dresden refers to famine at all. It's in chapter seven of Turn Coat.Lust, yes. Debauchery, yes. But famine? Not so much. Though if you were thinking of a different passage, my apologies.No that's the one... I'd have to look back into famine as a horseman to put together my perspective really, though maybe if I can utilize a different theology for your pleasure
Desire. The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is craving or thirst (tanha). This doesn't mean cravings should be repressed or denied. Instead, in Buddhist practice, we acknowledge our passions and learn to see they are empty, so they no longer control us. This is true for hate, greed and other emotions. Sexual desire is no different.Not the quote I was looking for, it was more specific towards the fact no matter how much you actually have sex it's never a desire that's satisfied vs love. emboldened the first bit though cause it's implications toward that empty nature vs the satisfied nature of love and it's attached contentment. the second bit because right their they put it in with the 3 negative powers of the universe(which is from Asiatic religion originally) with the slight differentiation of fear/terror and fear/wrath. which, in the DF the overlap is fear becomes anger(heh, star wars fan).
"For all its ecstatic nature, for all its power, sex is just another human drive. If we avoid it just because it is more difficult to integrate than anger or fear, then we are simply saying that when the chips are down we cannot follow our own practice. This is dishonest and unhealthy."
The thing is, I don't remember Marcone as ever having demonstrated an emotional lust for power. He's like a mountain lion, quiet, stalking, calculating, and striking when necessary. He shows emotion at other times, certainly, but he always maintains a professional attitude toward his business. This is not the emotional driven aspect of lust; the thirst and hunger to take and devour and consume what is out of your reach.Can you not say Mab lusts for power despite her logic? Marcone kinda stopped using his outward emotions but the base stimulus drives are the same. young Marcone vs Now is like Summer vs Winter, even uses the word summer in his description.
Caring and love are completely different. Also, a person doesn't need to care in the actual person in order to express guilt. For example - pure hypothesis and speculation - if Marcone was orphaned as a child because his parents were gunned down by mobsters, and he rose to the position that he's in all in order to wrench control of Chicago's underground out from the last regime, his actions could be interpreted as guilt because despite his efforts to turn the criminal underground into a controlled, less violent place, he became exactly the monster that he despised. Which would completely explain why he has one secret sin, something that he would give anything to undo.Dude, if your going to compare him to batman, remember batman gave up everything multiple times for his city, did horrendous things to those whom he perceived as well deserved, and even died for Gotham in some timelines. The guy had loved his city, and now matter how twisted he became it was always that original spark that drove him in who he was... far as i'm concerned you proved that point better than I would have lol.
Though I do like your theory of Marcone with Amoracchius. I've noticed that in every single Denarian novel, Marcone is also a major player. Marcone, also, seems to run in multiples of five. I feel that before all is said and done, he might be either holding a coin or a sword.One might say I tried to do as John Henry thought in Terminator, if I have the same data can I come to the same conclusions. Buddhism has this awesome myth about an ice giantess locked down on an island that fits MW's bill, the Yin-Yang to Pakua theory describes inside/existence vs outside/nonexistence and what the outsiders want and why, and why the same 'people' keep happening.
So explain it! :D Help me understand. I know I must not be seeing the big picture the way you are. If you're explaining non-sexual, non-emotional actions as "lusty" and I reply that the interpretation of the word loses its meaning, reply back and tell me why your meaning makes more sense. You mention that your understanding of this is grounded a lot more in the older historical imbalances as described in Buddhism and Taoism. That would be a perfect way to counter me and help me understand.
This is clearly a large, fleshed out running theory that you have for the origins and theme of vampires, also dealing with the eventual direction of the series. I love theories. If I just don't get it and am debating something that you've said, don't get offended; counter me! Show me where I'm wrong. :) If I'm missing the point, it should be easy.I just get frustrated with negativity sometimes. Communication isn't my first language lol. It's a big Nebulous conspiracy theory that does lead toward were the series is going, But I keep that part close to the chest.
I like this. I haven't encountered this particular WOJ myself (or I did a long time ago and forgot about it) but a "seven deadly sins" theme does make sense when broadly creating the vampires, especially because the initial concept of the Whites certainly was tied to lust. It's only when Harry starts diving into the intricacies between the houses that he encounters those who feed on fear or despair, which might have been a further development after the initial concept was created.lol, I pegged them as pride too fyi. I think it's in a vid saved in the woj section... where though... if any are linked directly in the compilation vampires reply i'd start there. The questions should be all in same vid, but i'm not positive on that. That was the premise I based this part around when I started into vampires though. iirc i'd already been looking into them after the loop struck me as a Wrath possibility.
Makes me wonder what the Jade Court would be tied to. Hard to tell from the very little WOJ that we get. There's no sin for being a recluse. Possibly pride, considering how Jim's referred to their dismissal of the nation of "China" as possibly some sort of trend that might not pan out.
Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.That would be like writing a small book... i'm not that good at making a linear organization of an idea... the work, and from scratch... uhh. I'll have to take a rain check until motivation moves in.
Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence. That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.
Taiji (simplified Chinese: 太极; traditional Chinese: 太極; pinyin: tàijí; literally: "great pole") is a Chinese cosmological term for the "Supreme Ultimate" state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential, the oneness before duality, from which Yin and Yang originate, can be compared with the old WujiThat's the essence of the idea behind the balance, Wuji, one state broke into yin-yang, the first tier being existence nonexistence but, then light and dark, ect, but always the same two poles balance. Like taiji by both sides taking some of the other in balance. Afterlives prevent true death back to yang/nonexistence but also make necromancy type 'nonexistent' places exist, things like Mordite and Outsiders. Need a quote I can't find here, can't narrow down the specific mythos yet, about the endless dividing shadow from which all life then takes shape and divides(thought it was Maori but...maybe south America some where) and returns to shadow on death to divide out again, Using Pakua which explains divisions in life from yin-yang down to the five elements themselves. All of which can be partially applied to starborn/archetype characters in generations and supported by the curse in BR, she talks of the Hunter of shadows. This can be seen as the amalgamation of Ouranos, Chronos, The Darkness, ect. Also supported by Lucifer being termed the 'darkest' shadow and MW the Tallest, both exist as part of inside despite being of the Outside. the Little dot in the Yin-yang symbol, which non existence therefore 'exists' out there too. Including the highest tier Who want wuji, the old ones who want in to dictate their own version of life,realities that never were, ect. Then we have
For a non-point or "extended" source of light, the shadow is divided into the umbra, penumbra and antumbra. The wider the light source, the more blurred the shadow becomes. If two penumbras overlap, the shadows appear to attract and merge. This is known as the Shadow Blister Effect.This appears to be the effect Outsiders/shadows use to manifest in reality.. fearbringer bears a striking functionality to the scarecrow who ate parts of Molly's soul and the Cloth Molly left from Harry's murder. His amalgamation, like hwwbh's is the result of the Blister effect in Mirroring reality. (Blamps blister a living human precisely then move through them into reality fyi, also Summer vs Winter Queens, connects here to my theory Winter 'came' inside' from previously being the power of ice giant outsiders, Lucifer to TWC, and towards why Blampires gain strength so fast, they are true immortals that feed directly on taking life, one small darkhallow at a time, ect) anyway...
Though I will argue against the view of Marcone. Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power. She wants balance. She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more. Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.Then why do we need Titania's failsafe?
I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman. At all. Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid. With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone. Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft. He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.He's maimed and even killed criminal's though. everybody has a line to 'othering' someone outside their monkey sphere after all. Marcone see's the practicality of having the control the same way the Punisher see's the practicality of killing them off entirely. Doesn't change the initial spark, just how they choose to deal with it. Like fear becoming anger OR terror.
In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker.Actually his Hooker is Ms Beckett.. and the Jury is gonna be out on that one for now.
He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit. Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes. There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.Not fair when I don't know any of Moriarty's backstory ;p I'll continue the Punisher/batman comparison though, because both had their families murdered before them, same motive. Bruce, a kid, drew in high minded ideals and became a vigilante that's known for being tough as shit, having the biggest gadgets, and striking fear into the hearts criminals. The punisher can replace gadget's with guns and all stay accurate their, same starborn lol. fyi... you know Harry IS batman right? PG was a joke on batman and sleepy hallow, Harry was the detective without fear archetype there vs the master of fear scarecrow/fearbringer. Had Darby Crane to parallel Jonathan Crane, the scarecrow and Ichabod Crane who fought off a pumpkin headed horsemen, paralleling the scarecrow acting as the beast of burden/horse to the walker fearbringer, as a 'horseman'... Jim enjoy's his hidden jokes... just wonder what I've still missed lol.
Hey, Shift8! Good point on the “taking off years of a person’s life” thing; I didn’t think, but I’m sure a person would be able to recover in much the way that Harry recovers after using Soulfire a lot – time, soul-fulfilling activities, life. Otherwise, there’d be no way that Justine could have recovered the way she did.
Your question really is a good philosophical one – the moral approach that is to be taken with vampires, and whether extermination of them is something which can be considered. I find this discussion works best if I think less of this being a moral issue, and more of it being an issue between finding neutrality between two different sapient races. The moral road being that it is immoral to wipe out a species that is both sentient (self aware) and sapient (capable of reason and logical thinking) unless there is no other option.
(To your question about how something can be lacking free will but be sentient, I think that Jim addresses that in Cold Case. I spoilered’ it because not everyone might have read it.)(click to show/hide)
The question is, can a peace treaty be really, honestly, lastingly held between two separate species of being, when one species is the only food that the other species can eat? And can it be held in such a way that the one species is not abusing the other?
Total war to eradicate the species would only be justified if such a peace could not be kept. If this was, say, Humans vs. Klingons, then it would be immoral to completely wipe out the Klingon race simply because of their extreme violence; they have a different society and structure, but it should be possible to coexist. They’ve coexisted for millions of years separate; no reason why they can’t continue.
to live.
But the Vampire cannot separate himself from mankind; he must be a predator to survive, and he only has one food: us. Furthermore, they MUST kill. Reds and Whites start their life WITH a fatal feeding; black court MUST kill a mortal to create a new blampire. It’s sort of difficult to maintain a peace with a race if “Oh yeah, we have to kill one of you guys every time we reproduce” happens. And as we clearly see in First Lord’s Fury, an existence without reproduction is nothing but a slow death.
So, is it morally superior to say that the Whites can stay, but the Reds should go? I don’t know. Other than Thomas, we really haven’t seen any “good” white court vampires. They’ve been just as vicious, bloodthirsty, and dangerous as the Reds, but in a subtler way. I personally don’t think that the serial rapist is morally better than the serial killer.
If Jim Butcher wrote the Dresden Files with a sympathetic red court vampire – say, Thomas stayed a minor character and never grew from where he was portrayed in Grave Peril – and Susan was turned but fought against her nature – would we still say that the Reds are monsters and need to be put down? Because in the Dresden Files, the white court is portrayed as the villain just as much as the red court is.
Honestly, if we’re just looking at the numbers, they ALL should go. There’s no capable way of having a lasting peace treaty between them all; the only thing that’s worked so far is keeping ‘the cattle’ ignorant of their presence while wizards look the other way. Every single White and Red Court vampire is a murderer, and will murder again. I agree with Eb – no matter how nice they seem now, their hunger takes control again. And they can’t live separate from humanity. There is no way for this species to coexist with humanity, and if given the opportunity, they will grow and spread and dominate and completely force the world to submit.
--
Jonas – I understand some of what you were saying now – if I understand, you were drawing parallels to the sins of lust, gluttony, sloth, pride, wrath, greed, and envy with the four horsemen – famine, pestilence, war, and death, and drawing further parallels between lust, famine, and others to the Buddhist interpretation of desire. That does make a lot of sense, and is pretty deep. Some time you’ve totally got to lay down your full theory.
Especially about that bit about the inside/existence versus outside/nonexistence. That would be really interesting, especially because I’m dying to find out what actually is outside, and what drives the Outsiders.
Though I will argue against the view of Marcone. Comparing him to Mab doesn’t work, because Mab doesn’t lust for power. She wants balance. She has her power, she uses it; she doesn’t seek more. Which, I think, is why Mab never interfered with Harry taking the artifacts at the end of Skin Game, and never even told him to take them.
I actually didn’t compare Marcone to Batman. At all. Though that might be my mistake; I haven’t watched a Batman flick since… well, I’ve never watched a Batman movie, and only remember watching the Saturday morning cartoons as a kid. With that being said, you cannot say the things you said about Batman and apply them to Marcone. Batman (I presume) doesn’t run a prostitution ring, or have a team of hired assassins or manage the drug activity in his town; he doesn’t demand protection money from corporations or take a cut from any organized robbery or theft. He doesn’t hold blackmail against or bribe local government and law enforcement in order to break laws.
In short, Marcone doesn’t love Chicago, any more than a pimp loves his hooker. He protects the city because it’s his, but he drives it like a beast of burden in order to make a profit. Saying that Marcone is like Batman is saying that Professor Moriarty is like Sherlock Holmes. There are similarities, yes, but the core of their beings are completely opposite.
I agree with alot of this, but Im gonna hit on the bit where we diverge...but thats more interesting :)
I disagree about wiping out a race not being justified simply due to its nature. Im not a star treck expert but from what I have seen of the klingon they are morally capable, if necessarily inclined.
Vampires of the type we are discussing, are like Orcs. Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.
Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.
It is incorrect to attach the same sort of genocide ethic we attach to humans to a species that is incapable of moral decision making in the same way as humans do. You cannot change the equation and expect the same answer, so to speak.
When I human commits murder, most people would considering justified to kill that person under most circumstances. And all Orcs or Red/Black Vampires are murders by nature. They are incapable of treating other moral creatures with the necessary respect, and therefore must be annihilated.
Pretty much. Ramps and Blamps are species that can only propagate via murder, and only thrive through slavery and addiction.And Whamps, too. Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding. Every one.
Their destruction, even for whimsy, incurs no moral penalty because the nature of the species is not just Amoral, like an animal, but inherently malicious towards humans. They are not worthy of life because they are incapable of actions that make them so. Essentially, they are like a race of serial killers. Born as such, and incapable of ever being anything other than that by their nature.In a world of many, many different species of intelligent beings, that's a very human-centric morality. There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind? So, flipside - if one day we learned that plants are sentient and sapient, but humankind must consume either plant matter or animals which consume plant matter in order to survive, does that mean that it's only just for humankind to be wiped out?
Wiping them off the face of the earth is no more morally significant than eating a bowl of ice cream because I feel like it, except that wiping out monsters does a public service to everyone else.
Tolkien included scenes in The Lord of the Rings where Orcs displayed not-so-evil qualities such as loyalty, friendship, and even a rebellious attitude toward Sauron. They were soldiers enslaved to evil but not because they were born to evil. Tolkien went to great lengths to rationalize how the Orcs could be the foot-soldiers of dark lords and would-be dark lords, essentially deciding that their free wills had been constrained by the more powerful wills of their masters.
When left to themselves the Orcs were still capable of organizing themselves into societies in Tolkien's fiction, but though they didn't get along with Dwarves, Elves, or Men there were many instances where the latter did not get along with each other, either, especially among Men.
So did Tolkien really depict the Orcs as being more evil than Men or did he merely depict how the major characters in the story viewed the Orcs? One of the most notable scenes in the story is that where Aragorn shows mercy to the Orcs besieging the Hornburg, warning them to flee before they are destroyed. Should he really have done that if he felt the Orcs were utterly evil and unredeemable?
And Whamps, too. Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding. Every one.Actually the bigfoot trilogy refutes this fact, he survived because he had a larger gas tank for her to syphon... makes me wonder if her nature is on some level different, because her demon wasn't born through taking away anothers choice of life. Which is the main factor for changing both Reds and Whamps, the Blamps idk when the change happens or why, but they always kill... that's actually a thematically accurate thing. Whamps and Ramps are 'born' through death, which supplies the creation energy. Blamps take the creation energy with every life though, they aren't 'set' in stone... perhaps Walking conjunctions themselves even.
There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind?From the Trumpet voice I take it was because they were every one of them murderers who continued to hurt and willfully commit acts towards others, as a whole species.
Actually the bigfoot trilogy refutes this fact, he survived because he had a larger gas tank for her to syphon...Oops, OK. Let me rephrase. Every White got that way from a fatal feeding except one lucky chick who shacked up with a Forest Person scion.
I believe they did similar things to the Ancient Mayan and Aztec gods which is implied by the Red King taking on Kulkulan name and position, as well as Dresdens theorising he wasn't the original Kulkulan in one line where the Red King wasn't sure who Susan as a KOTC was under the invisibility cloak.I have a slightly different view Kulkan is actually identified as Quetzalcoatl in Aztec Myth,
Quetzalcoatl (English: /ˌkɛtsɑːlˈkoʊɑːtəl/; Spanish pronunciation: [ketsalˈkoatɬ] (About this sound listen)) (Classical Nahuatl: Quetzalcohuātl [ket͡saɬˈkowaːt͡ɬ], About this sound modern Nahuatl pronunciation (help·info)) forms part of Mesoamerican literature and is a deity whose name comes from the Nahuatl language and means "feathered serpent".[2] The worship of a feathered serpent is first documented in Teotihuacan in the first century BC or first century AD.[3] That period lies within the Late Preclassic to Early Classic period (400 BC – 600 AD) of Mesoamerican chronology, and veneration of the figure appears to have spread throughout Mesoamerica by the Late Classic period (600–900 AD)Which then, as I think has repeated through reality/history a 'fall' happened based on the N paradigm, With the Help of Mayan Blood sacrifice He changed persona and the identity they named him as changed to Kukulkan too
In the Postclassic period (900–1519 AD), the worship of the feathered serpent deity was based in the primary Mexican religious center of Cholula. In the Maya area, he was approximately equivalent to Kukulkan and Gukumatz, names that also roughly translate as "feathered serpent" in different Mayan languagesThis fall/change I think happened repeatedly through history and can be seen in the Greek Gods becoming decadent Roman ones, Sumarian into Etrusican, ect.
And Whamps, too. Don't forget, every White got that way from a fatal feeding. Every one.
In a world of many, many different species of intelligent beings, that's a very human-centric morality. There's no moral qualm to wipe out an entire intelligent species because they appear to threaten mankind? So, flipside - if one day we learned that plants are sentient and sapient, but humankind must consume either plant matter or animals which consume plant matter in order to survive, does that mean that it's only just for humankind to be wiped out?
I'm not arguing that the vampires aren't extremely dangerous and should not be wiped out. I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed. All thinking beings have value and worth - call it a soul, call it intelligence - and it is a great tragedy to end that line.
Remember Waldo Butters with Dresden at the library in Dead Beat. Dresden says that Liverspots was a complete monster. Butters says yeah... but he was still a person.
I'm going to steal whole-cloth an argument made by some guy on Reddit a year ago, because I know little of Tolkein's orcs.
You call the orcs completely evil, and that killing them is no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream. Welll, the Whites believe that the kine are nothing but dumb beasts, incapable of real intelligence and being, and that killing them is also no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream. Who's right? You, for painting them as nothing but monsters? Them, for painting us as nothing but cattle? In the Dresden Files, mankind is just one of many thinking beings, and you can't just base your morality on "what hurts homo sapiens the most?"
That's why I say that it's immoral to end a species unless there's no other choice.
I have a slightly different view Kulkan is actually identified as Quetzalcoatl in Aztec Myth, Which then, as I think has repeated through reality/history a 'fall' happened based on the N paradigm, With the Help of Mayan Blood sacrifice He changed persona and the identity they named him as changed to Kukulkan too This fall/change I think happened repeatedly through history and can be seen in the Greek Gods becoming decadent Roman ones, Sumarian into Etrusican, ect.
Thank you jonas for giving said ancient cultures proper respect
Of course thats my entire argument. It seems your just disagreeing on the order.
Seriously guys klingons and orcs what board are we on. They're different genres with different focuses. Besides tolkien was just a little racist. Star trek has more anthropology but still it's focus is intellectual. Dresden files is about heroism superheroism in fact. A closer fandom analogy would be marvel. But an even closer one is the actual aztec mayan and inca cultures for Red Court. Etruscan roman greek for white
Slavic russian and lower germanic cultures for black court.
To you question about plants: If plants had Human-level intelligence, and human moral capacity, then yes we could not eat them. If your only food source is a person, your only valid choices are to die or find some alternative. Anything else makes you a monster. But plants dont have human-level intellect or persona, so it is not relevant really.Please don't dodge by saying that "it's not real so it doesn't matter." None of this is real. I'm asking you if you're stating that in a clear case of predator/prey in which one MUST kill the other to survive, that it is the predator that must be exterminated. That instead of enduring the occasional death of members of one species, that it is preferable to go with mass genocide. And if you would willingly and happily consign yourself to the same fate if you found homogeneous sapiens in that boat.
As for Liverspots: Who cares if he was a person? I have never understood why anyone finds this significant. Hitler was a person. What of it? Your life no longer has ANY value if you commit acts that nullify its value.Michael would disagree with you. Nicodemus is arguably a worse person than Hitler, having done more damage over his thousands of years and committing more atrocities. And yet Michael risked his life, Harry's life, Uriel's grace, to offer the chance of redemption. No one has gone so far as to not turn back.
I fail to see how Tolkien was racisthttp://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien's_Works
Ok, so to answer a few things:
Please don't dodge by saying that "it's not real so it doesn't matter." None of this is real. I'm asking you if you're stating that in a clear case of predator/prey in which one MUST kill the other to survive, that it is the predator that must be exterminated. That instead of enduring the occasional death of members of one species, that it is preferable to go with mass genocide. And if you would willingly and happily consign yourself to the same fate if you found homogeneous sapiens in that boat.
Besides, it's a big universe. You literally don't know if the same thing cannot be said of us. If dolphins are discovered to be sentient and mankind is killing them by polluting the oceans and causing climate change, does that mean that if man won't give up industrialization, we must be exterminated?
Michael would disagree with you. Nicodemus is arguably a worse person than Hitler, having done more damage over his thousands of years and committing more atrocities. And yet Michael risked his life, Harry's life, Uriel's grace, to offer the chance of redemption. No one has gone so far as to not turn back.
If you disagree, OK, that's your opinion. Dresden - at least, Dresden as he is now, and certainly early Dresden - would agree with you. But just because you say that he's a monster and should be wiped out without a second thought doesn't make it gospel truth.
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien's_Works
Ok, so to answer a few things:
Please don't dodge by saying that "it's not real so it doesn't matter." None of this is real. I'm asking you if you're stating that in a clear case of predator/prey in which one MUST kill the other to survive, that it is the predator that must be exterminated. That instead of enduring the occasional death of members of one species, that it is preferable to go with mass genocide. And if you would willingly and happily consign yourself to the same fate if you found homogeneous sapiens in that boat.
Besides, it's a big universe. You literally don't know if the same thing cannot be said of us. If dolphins are discovered to be sentient and mankind is killing them by polluting the oceans and causing climate change, does that mean that if man won't give up industrialization, we must be exterminated?
Michael would disagree with you. Nicodemus is arguably a worse person than Hitler, having done more damage over his thousands of years and committing more atrocities. And yet Michael risked his life, Harry's life, Uriel's grace, to offer the chance of redemption. No one has gone so far as to not turn back.
If you disagree, OK, that's your opinion. Dresden - at least, Dresden as he is now, and certainly early Dresden - would agree with you. But just because you say that he's a monster and should be wiped out without a second thought doesn't make it gospel truth.
Seen if before. All nonsense. Essentially a bunch of drivel that implies a euro centric setting must be racist in nature, amongst other simplistic thinking.The writer mostly concludes he was not a racist but it describes why people would think so.
The writer mostly concludes he was not a racist but it describes why people would think so.
It is not a crazy question especially since racism was everywhere in pre war europe, not just in germany and there are themes in his books that can and have been be abused in that way.
Just an FYI, the fact that Dresden would agree with me one of the reasons I love this series. You rarely see heroes like Dresden anymore because too many people who write stories have a morality system where the only true crime is to dare call anything evil, or anything good.
I said a little racist and I thought I wrote something about being progressive for his time, but I must of deleted it.
At the very least Tolkiens treatment of Eastern peoples and "Black Numenoreans" are a lil suspect as a race war against all the "white races."
However I do agree that the said white races have a diversity of cultures that have diversity of cultures within their cultures.
Theirs also evidence to suggest Numenor the Tolkien Atlantis was predominantly Black.
I just think within the books themselves their is a very west vs east attitude, which you can make arguments about the morality of the Ottoman Empire all you want but thing is Tolkien fought the Germans and came to respect them not hate them. Why couldn't he apply that to eastern peoples?
Though again it's implied that Aragorn himself gained respect for said eastern peoples when her travelled their fightin with and against them going as far south as Haradrim.
I tend to agree; I really don't like the way false moral equivalency has spread through much of modern fiction. Functionally, I understand the need to have a heroic protagonist agonize over killing a bad guy—because emotional torment is useful to the narrative—but, really, too many characters make outright idiotic decisions because they simply refuse to recognize evil when they see it.
Dresden is a good compromise. He makes the hard choice, but feels bad about it. For reference, see his emotional state in Proven Guilty, after killing Corpsetaker. He's still guilty (pun unintended) about it—funny enough, not so much with Cassius, which he should feel guiltier about, considering the guy was down for the count when he had Mouse off him.
As for morality and vampires... well. You know. Murderers, seducers, and so on. There are likely outliers in terms of moral code, like Thomas, but they're functionally evil, because they do evil things. You don't have the right to someone else's life or liberty. Being born or forced into taking it doesn't relieve culpability in my book.
Don't look at me that way when I mention Whampires eating animals. It's icky, sure, but no more morally wrong than foie gras. Which is ALSO morally wrong, sure, but we don't arrest and kill folks coming out of French restaurants.
Elephants and Wales commit suicide so big meals for Skavis.
There's a direct correlation the loss of their loved ones being the trigger though?Idk about those studies but I know the 'give up' threshold to despair is real. They drown rats and the ones who felt unable to escape allowed themselves to drown even after they were released from the constraint. They theorize this is the same reason officers fall down and bleed out from a relatively non lethal wound, cops and robbers/cowboys and Indians mentality gets drilled in that getting shot means you fall down. Almanac of the strange.
Idk about those studies but I know the 'give up' threshold to despair is real. They drown rats and the ones who felt unable to escape allowed themselves to drown even after they were released from the constraint. They theorize this is the same reason officers fall down and bleed out from a relatively non lethal wound, cops and robbers/cowboys and Indians mentality gets drilled in that getting shot means you fall down. Almanac of the strange.
Look up an image of a rifle wound on a human and you will understand real fast why people drop like sacks of potatoes when they get hit. Real fast.*coughs* Not the point, not at all, an fyi police don't get shot with rifles usually. Nor does that apply to non fatal wounds which I specifically cited. The 'puncturing' of the circulatory system usually ONLY happens with large caliber rounds that penetrate through, but i'd mostly give that effect to stabbings anyway. Small caliber, like what is usually encountered on the streets, either gets lodged in the wound or finds a body cavity and bounces around inside the vic. Either way the entry wound can be completely negligible. and... believing as you believe and spreading that to others directly without overall perspective is what creates the subconscious idea about what should happen, causing it... Don't help placebo people to death, forum members at that O.o